Wyoming is suing the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, centers on whether its the federal government or the state that has the final authority to restore gun rights to those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.

Under federal law, people convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence used to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. In 1986, that changed: Those convicted could own a gun if their records were expunged.

A new Wyoming law, passed in 2004, set up a process for letting people convicted of misdemeanor offenses -- including, but not specifically, domestic violence acts -- regain their gun rights. The state, however, used a different definition of "expunge," setting off a series of battles with ATF.

In July 2005, ATF said it would notify federally licensed firearms dealers that concealed weapons permits from Wyoming were invalid unless the state changed its law.

Monday's lawsuit is the state's most recent response.

"The BATF's actions are an illegal attempt to force BATF's will upon the Wyoming Attorney General and Wyoming's duly elected legislature," wrote Attorney General Pat Crank and Senior Assistant Attorney General C. Levi Martin.

Those clowns should be putting tax stamps on whiskey bottles and cigarettes and nothing else. If it were up to me I'd make sure those stamps had to be licked, one at a time. None of that self-adhesive stuff, no way.

L

9
posted on 05/11/2006 10:52:42 AM PDT
by Lurker
(Anyone who doesn't demand an immediate end to illegal immigration is aiding the flesh trade.)

Really, are you should lay off the MSM koolaid. I know hundreds of legal gun owning Californians. We also have lots of hunting in this state. Care to elaborate how that can come about if owning firearms here is illegal?

17
posted on 05/11/2006 11:41:06 AM PDT
by tertiary01
(The Pubs have become a one dimensional party.(My way or the highway))

There are lots (probably numbering over a million) of active gun owners in this state and all the gun stores in my area are doing well. As far as the climate of inconvenience, that is a problem but not unsurmountable, and there are the liberal antigun pockets like SF.

I am hardly an expert but I can see with my own two eyes. No one I know goes out in the woods unarmed.

20
posted on 05/11/2006 12:11:44 PM PDT
by tertiary01
(The Pubs have become a one dimensional party.(My way or the highway))

"Care to elaborate how that can come about if owning firearms here is illegal?" easy there take some valium and relax i am being melodramatic. I know MA royally stinks for gun owners - i am a gun owner and fled to NH from MA in part to escape these liberal whackos. I could go on and on about MA and how it sucks there for gun owners. As for CA i read that MA and CA had the toughest gun laws for a state in the nation. Therefore i came to the conclusion that they had similar restrictions. Did not mean to get your panties in a twist over it so relax.

This article is not clear. It references several different issues but does not explain any of them well enough for someone not keeping track of Wyoming's disputes to understand just what the conflict is.

24
posted on 05/11/2006 12:43:44 PM PDT
by justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)

"...[FBI Agent James] Hosty told the [House] Select Committee that at the time of the assassination 'Frank' Ellsworth...had indicated that he had been in the grassy knoll area and for some reason identified himself as a Secret Service Agent.' 8 Ellsworth, deposed by the Committee, denied Hosty's allegation. We know, however, that he was in the immediate area.9 Interestingly, he and seven other ATF agents were among the first law enforcement personnel of any description to reach the sixth floor of the TSBD. If Ellsworth was in the vicinity, it remains to be asked how Hosty knew about it. (Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics," pg. 274)

"In 1963, if you would have asked me if I was a Secret Service agent, I most likely would have answered yes-our roles overlapped that much." (Frank Ellsworth to author Gus Russo in 1994, "Live By The Sword," pg. 473)10

Is Ellsworth admitting he is the knoll agent? If so, then why did he deny it to the HSCA? Reflecting on the timing of Officer Smith seeing the knoll agent, if Ellsworth left his fellow agents and drifted over to the knoll area immediately after the shooting he may have been the man Smith saw. According to testimony, this didn't happen.

· Other ATF Agents

The text below is from a US Secret Service document given to JFK Lancer by author Gus Russo regarding a memo from Alcohol and Tobacco Tax regarding their agents in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. (A&TT was the old name of ATF.) Both ATF and Secret Service had treasury ID's. Even so, the Booth documents state the agents were searching the TSBD, not the knoll. 11

There is enclosed a memorandum dated Jan. 14, 1964, submitted by Mr. Carl R. Booth, Jr. Supervisor in Charge, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax, Dallas, TX, regarding their Special Investigators and others having assisted in search of the Texas School Book Depository Building after assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. A copy of this memorandum is being retained in Dallas office.

ATF said it would notify federally licensed firearms dealers that concealed weapons permits from Wyoming were invalid unless the state changed its law

Can someone explain to me exactly what this would accomplish? I haven't looked it up, but somehow I feel certain that a concealed carry permit is not required in Wyoming to purchase firearms. And reciprocal recognition of carry permits are a matter of state law, so many states already don't honor Wyoming permits. And the states that do aren't likely to be bound by any such BATFE pronouncement, since the states don't have to require ANY permit to allow residents or non-residents to carry concealed in the state. And federally licensed firearms dealers in states that do require permits certainly aren't in a position to go around arresting visiting Wyoming residents who are carrying concealed with only a Wyoming permit.

Can someone explain to me exactly what this would accomplish? I haven't looked it up, but somehow I feel certain that a concealed carry permit is not required in Wyoming to purchase firearms. And reciprocal recognition of carry permits are a matter of state law, so many states already don't honor Wyoming permits.

Those that do not are generally eitherb those that refuse to issue permits to their own citizens, or those that require a state-scored course of fire as a part of the application process.

And the states that do aren't likely to be bound by any such BATFE pronouncement, since the states don't have to require ANY permit to allow residents or non-residents to carry concealed in the state. And federally licensed firearms dealers in states that do require permits certainly aren't in a position to go around arresting visiting Wyoming residents who are carrying concealed with only a Wyoming permit.

That appears to be the point that the Wyoming A.G. is trying to make. And, of course, as an attorney, he is required to report violations of law even when they are committed by federal agents and agencies.

United States Code, Title 18, U.S. Criminal Code; Part I, Chapter 13, § 241:

Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I wish someone would sue Mass. and CA If you own a gun in either state you are a criminal don't you know. 10 DM1

Really, are you should lay off the MSM koolaid. I know hundreds of legal gun owning Californians. We also have lots of hunting in this state. Care to elaborate how that can come about if owning firearms here is illegal? 17 t01

Koolaid? -- Owning the wrong kinds of firearms is 'illegal' in CA. -- And selling any gun, or even giving them to your heirs - [except thru a dealer] makes you a criminal. Don't defend CA's gun grabbing 'laws'. They are some of the worse in the USA.

Come on, that poster made a blanket statement with no qualifiers. Every state has their regulations of which California has some of the worst, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of gun owners here.

36
posted on 05/11/2006 6:20:12 PM PDT
by tertiary01
(The Pubs have become a one dimensional party.(My way or the highway))

Cute. Confiscated semi-auto "assault weapons" are going to be the problem, as you well know.

Come on, that poster made a blanket statement with no qualifiers. Every state has their regulations of which California has some of the worst, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of gun owners here.

California's confiscatory 'laws' go far beyond mere regulations. Beats me why you're so unconcerned about them, -- but it sure helps explain why we're saddled with them.. Millions like you have their heads in the sand.

ATF said it would notify federally licensed firearms dealers that concealed weapons permits from Wyoming were invalid unless the state changed its law

Can someone explain to me exactly what this would accomplish?

In many states, the ATF has OK'd the sale -- via licensed dealers -- of firearms without going through the "Instant Check" system, IF the purchaser holds a state-issued CCW license. This does not apply to all states, but from the context, I surmise that Wyoming is -- or rather, was -- one of those states that the ATF has given the approval.

By prohibiting dealers from making sales to CCW holders on the basis of the CCW license, they are forcing the purchasers through the "Instant Check" system, where, presumably, they will be flagged, and denied.

This would of course have no effect on person-to-person sales (presuming they are legal in Wyoming), other than to probably make them illegal. (By "no effect", I mean that they would not prevent them, whereas the FFL prohibition will indeed prevent such sales via licensed dealers.)

As I read somewhere a while back, the ATF is indeed authorized by statute to restore gun rights on an individual basis -- however, Our Glorious Leaders in Congress have opted to refuse to fund any such rights-restoration by ATF -- and ATF has complied with that lack of funding by refusing to restore any rights.

So, a person who, thirty or forty years ago caught himself a "paper violation" sufficient to deny him his gun rights -- and has since that time led an exemplary life -- will find himself absolutely unable to have his rights restored, even though he is entitled by law to petition for such restoration. His attempt to petition for restoration will be refused.

From the looks of it, ATF seems intent on ensuring that the mere fact that "their hands are tied" by Congress shall NOT be subjected to an end-run by the states. Sort of reminscent of Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.

40
posted on 05/11/2006 7:24:44 PM PDT
by Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)

This article is not clear. It references several different issues but does not explain any of them well enough for someone not keeping track of Wyoming's disputes to understand just what the conflict is.

Seems as though the ATF is correct on this one and that the intention of the Congress is that there be no record of these convictions kept. If the State can dreg it up again it is not expunged by definition.

47
posted on 05/13/2006 10:19:24 PM PDT
by justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)

Seems as though the ATF is correct on this one and that the intention of the Congress is that there be no record of these convictions kept. If the State can dreg it up again it is not expunged by definition.

What the feds are after is the power to *erase* past state records of misconduct by their own officers and agents, so that they need not fear state action for their own past misconduct or conspiracies to commit same.

If they don't get that, they're not going to let the peons of whom they feel they are the masters enjoy any such relief either.

In 1986, Congress amended that bogus 'law' to allow states to set rules for restoring gun rights to people who've been pardoned or whose convictions have been "expunged, or set aside."

In 2004, Wyoming's legislature compounded, and agreed with the federal infringement by passing a 'law' meant to govern how such convictions could be expunged: "-- Individuals would have to wait one year after completing their sentence; they would not qualify if their misdemeanor conviction involved the use or attempted use of a firearm; and they could not have any other convictions that prohibit them from owning guns. --"

The US Constitution is clear in that no level of government can infringe on our right to bear arms. -- A fiat prohibition on a persons RKBA's for "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is clearly an unreasonable regulation regardless if written by fed, state or local 'lawmakers'..

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.